“Using your “logic” in boasting that Russia having no aircraft carriers is in better shape than the US having 11 super-carriers...”
Having hugely expensive, obsolete weapons systems is worse than not having them because you have to pay the enormous maintenance cost. The reactor refueling alone for the Stennis is $3 billion.
If the USA had spent that money on forging presses for artillery shells, it could have bought 50 forging presses, and be able to produce 50,000+ shells per day.
Instead, the US Navy has hundred of $ billions in white elephants, that can’t even stop a naval blockade set up by a terrorist group.
Reverend Wright should wright the QDR.
The U.S. Dept. of Defense is charged with a wide range of responsibilities. These responsibilities range from dealing with existential threats to dealing with all kinds of lesser contingencies. No doubt that many of the technologies pursued by the DOD suffer from a desire that these technologies can be applied to a range of contingencies. Consider the disasters of the Littoral Combat Ship and the Zumult-class “destroyer.” The F-35, the most expensive purchase in DOD history, is a very expensive platform, and lacks important attributes of the platforms it is supposed to replace.
Aircraft carriers have capabilities that cannot be duplicated. To sustain the deployment of three or four carriers around the world, we need a multiple of them. Each takes years to design and build and, once built, they have service lives of fifty years. Another aspect of having eleven or so, is to be able to deal with loses whether due to a near peer in a war, or to any other cause.
Only a country like the U.S. can sustain a defense posture like we do. We spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defense, which is less than half the percent we spent fifty years ago. And, this 3.5 percent of GDP is roughly equal to what the rest of the world spends on defense. We would greatly appreciate that our NATO allies met the expectation that they spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. We’ll take care of the things only we can, and they can focus on conventional arms.
It is naive to compare aircraft carriers with artillery shells. Conventional artillery shells can be produced on an assembly line. Production can be ramped up as necessary. We’re supposed to maintain production capacity in reserve so as to be able to increase production to met surges in demand. Besides, we have largely moved away from dumb bombs, and to smart munitions.
Guided munitions are more complicated and production of them can’t be easily ramped up. With more complicated munitions, we manage stockpiles. Having dipped into these stockpiles, we should consider placing new orders.
Compare the west’s ability to defend against air attacks to Russia’s. We see in Israel and in Ukraine tremendous ability to defeat rocket, missile and drone attacks. In Ukraine, air defense deters Russia from deploying warplanes and helicopters near the front (and motivated them to develop glide bomb technologies). In contrast, Ukraine can fly inexpensive drones far into Russia territory to target its undefended energy infrastructure.
Thanks Reverend Wright for your usual intelligent input on these topics.